I don't know why, but I really enjoy Russian literature. I can be forgiven of this, perhaps, because of the popularity of this kind of literature over the years. I have yet to involve myself with Pushkin, however, knowing that he's the most famous and venerated of Russian authors, particularly in Russia itself.
But among my favorites (and I have several) Dostoevsky shines brilliantly, not only for his actual work, but more particularly for his philosophy. For some reason, western authors do not touch my soul as these Russian authors do. There's a resonance there, pensive, melancholy, dark, that I share. They are serious authors writing without evasion about important topics. The only western author I'm aware of that comes close is Hugo.
I am reading a couple of books by Dostoevsky - Crime and Punishment I started and got about 1/2 way through before getting distracted, but I fully anticipate picking back up again; and The Brothers Karamazov. This second tome promises to be another in a long line of books that offer unabashed looks into the soul, searching and pondering the meaning of things.
One of the topics that Dostoevsky introduces early in this novel is the discussion of the proper role of Church with regard to the State, and vice versa. Since the novel is set ostensibly in the 19th century, many of the problems that were so divisive at the time related to the power and money struggle between Church and State.
The two people discussing this present different points of view. On one hand, the Church offers little in the way of incentive for the avoiding of transgression. There is no real punishment, it is asserted, but only the voluntary removal of privilege, culminating in the supreme act of religious discipline - excommunication. In essence, it is argued, the Church simply says "I don't want to talk to you any more." The State, on the other hand, has at its disposal all of the punishments and tortures that man can devise to afflict and torment man into submission, ending up with perpetual solitary confinement or the actual termination of life.
The other argues that the Church offers the only "real" punishment. People of conscience are kept from wrongdoing through the carrot of pleasing God and gaining His favor, and also through the stick of the fear of reprisal and eternal damnation. The actions of the Church offer both mercy and justice, while the State can only offer justice.
This is an interesting discussion for me. There are crimes which are solely against God - blasphemy, covenant breaking, etc. - and which the State has no interest. Yet the laws of the State must also be kept by a person seeking to be a moral, ethical, and holy person. Joseph Smith taught that we (as Latter-day Saints) believe in being subject to the secular authority of the State and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. He also later stated that those who keep the laws of God have no need to break the law of the land.
The discussion in the book then turned to the ultimate role of the Church and State, exploring whether or not the State would exist if the Church achieved its ultimate goals, and vice versa. Does the success of the Church in its goals negate the need for secular governance? Is a theocracy possible? Or is it ultimately going to be some kind of hybrid - a democratic theocracy? I don't know. What I believe is the following:
1. There is currently a need for both religious and secular organizations. As such, there must also be a need for governance by and of these organizations.
2. People always have freedom to choose. Those who choose not to affiliate themselves with a religious organization that regulates moral behavior must then find themselves subject to some other form of regulation. (Please note that the method of regulation is not being discussed in this entry - that's a completely separate topic and deserves its own entire entry) lest they become without regulation and any kind of check and be allowed to run rough-shod over those who are held in regulation by something.
3. There will no doubt always be different groups of people claiming to be religious and governed by their own disparate sets of codes and standards. There will also, therefore, always be a need for a forum for addressing these differences in the event of a conflict.
4. Governments have been established ostensibly to protect people's freedoms. Freedoms are fluid things, however, and as society adapts itself to greater understanding and increased proximity, things that were once thought to be rights become privileges. Conversely, things thought reserved for the wealthy become available to the masses, increasing their freedom to pursue other things. Much of the world we now live in is incomprehensible to those of just a few generations ago. Technology has made this happen. I reserve judgement as to whether that is better or worse - the jury is still out. But suffice it to say that that many standards and understandings once thought to be inviolable have become discarded.
5. The punishments given out by the State are singularly ineffective as either a deterrent or a tool of reform. The discussion in the book (the Brothers K) points that out - no one left prison better for having been there. Lives are destroyed in the gaping maw of our penal system. Yes, it's necessary. Yes, society is better by removing some of these people from the rest of us. But the Church is in perhaps a much better position to address the root causes of the evil, rather than hacking at the hydra-like branches. Further, the Church offers hope and cleansing, while the State of doles out punishment, tarnished records, ruined lives, dashed hopes, and a lifetime of despair.
So that's it for this one. I like this kind of discussion because it makes me think, evaluate my own position, and consider things I had not entertained before. Ultimately, I do not flatter myself with thinking that I can either understand the future (or the present, for that matter!) or hope to influence it beyond my own little sphere. But I find it a fun mental exercise... :-)
Comments